Yes you CAN gain weight

pinggolfer96

I feel like this needs to be a post that stays at the top of the forum cause it’s repeated constantly! A lot of posts lately about people saying they “can’t gain weight” or “how do I gain weight” or “I have a fast metabolism”

You can gain weight. If you can’t....you’re defying simple science. Intake more energy than you burn (calories) equals weight gain, and Vice versa....
Idc if you say “but I eat so much!”
No you probably don’t or else you’d be gaining weight....
Saying I can’t gain weight is aka for I’m an under-eater.

If you have problems eating food cause you’re so full, don’t complain, find ways to make it work. Add oils to shakes, nuts, fatty meats, ice cream, pizzas, burgers. Calorically dense items! Google is also your friend. You can easily type in calorie dense foods or calorie dense shake recipes. Just a little rant cause the scientific literature of gaining weight is as simple as energy(caloric) manipulation

stej5639

I used to think i ate a lot and couldnt gain weight but when i started tracking my calories i realised i was eating at maintenance, even on days when i thought id ate a lot. Started eating more calorie dense foods and the weight is going on now. Tracking isnt just helpful for losing weight, but gaining too. Good post.

veggiekeller

Some people have digestive issues. If I eat too much, it just comes up. I've tried adding more oil, but just because it's dense nutrition doesn't make it easier for my body to digest it. It all just comes back up.

pinggolfer96

veggiekeller wrote: »

Some people have digestive issues. If I eat too much, it just comes up. I've tried adding more oil, but just because it's dense nutrition doesn't make it easier for my body to digest it. It all just comes back up.

That’s different though than my intentions of the post. Also, there are many alternatives/ strategies to getting easy calories in!💪🏻

psuLemon

pinggolfer96 wrote: »

I feel like this needs to be a post that stays at the top of the forum cause it’s repeated constantly! A lot of posts lately about people saying they “can’t gain weight” or “how do I gain weight” or “I have a fast metabolism”

You can gain weight. If you can’t....you’re defying simple science. Intake more energy than you burn (calories) equals weight gain, and Vice versa....
Idc if you say “but I eat so much!”
No you probably don’t or else you’d be gaining weight....
Saying I can’t gain weight is aka for I’m an under-eater.

If you have problems eating food cause you’re so full, don’t complain, find ways to make it work. Add oils to shakes, nuts, fatty meats, ice cream, pizzas, burgers. Calorically dense items! Google is also your friend. You can easily type in calorie dense foods or calorie dense shake recipes. Just a little rant cause the scientific literature of gaining weight is as simple as energy(caloric) manipulation

You do realize that is why i created the thread, are you a hard gainer?

AnvilHead

psuLemon wrote: »

pinggolfer96 wrote: »

I feel like this needs to be a post that stays at the top of the forum cause it’s repeated constantly! A lot of posts lately about people saying they “can’t gain weight” or “how do I gain weight” or “I have a fast metabolism”

You can gain weight. If you can’t....you’re defying simple science. Intake more energy than you burn (calories) equals weight gain, and Vice versa....
Idc if you say “but I eat so much!”
No you probably don’t or else you’d be gaining weight....
Saying I can’t gain weight is aka for I’m an under-eater.

If you have problems eating food cause you’re so full, don’t complain, find ways to make it work. Add oils to shakes, nuts, fatty meats, ice cream, pizzas, burgers. Calorically dense items! Google is also your friend. You can easily type in calorie dense foods or calorie dense shake recipes. Just a little rant cause the scientific literature of gaining weight is as simple as energy(caloric) manipulation

You do realize that is why i created the thread, are you a hard gainer?

Oh, you mean this one, which is pinned in the "must read" threads?: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10326769/are-you-a-hard-gainer-please-read/p1

Grambo54

My opinion, the pinned thread is wrong in one very important aspect. The thread says "Statistically speaking, the average person doesn't have a slow or fast metabolism". I think thats totally wrong and I dont think reality bears it out. What I see is that some body types (somatypes) metabolise food faster than others. We've all seen average people who can eat what they want and dont gain weight. Other "average people" get fat easily. Metabolic rates are not the whole story but they are a big part of it. I trained for competitions with an ectomorph body type for years. He ate much more than me, trying to gain weight, but put on weight, and only muscle weight, painfully slowly over the years. Me, a mesomorph type, I found it easy to gain weight even though I ate less than him. If you are a hard gainer look at the mix of calories you consume ie carbs/fat/protein. If you do too much cardio, this will hinder your weight gain. If you over train in the gym that will hinder weight gain. If you are overly stressed, that will too. What Im saying is, calories in calories out is only true in that your body will burn it all, but not at the same rate for everyone. Put the average ectomorph and endomorph on 4000 calories a day each, same level of activity etc, and watch the endomorph get fat. Also as you age your metabolic rate slows, making it harder to keep weight off. My training partner during my 20's is now 64. He dosnt exercise, eats what he wants, drinks beer/wine every day and still maintains the realatively slim ectomorphic physique he's always had. Me, Im 64 as well, but I have to run, bike, train, do as much as I can, to keep my weight under any sort of control whilst still enjoying plenty of food and beer, which I now thoroughly deserve at my age!

AnvilHead

Post a link to any valid peer-reviewed research regarding somatotypes and metabolism. Otherwise I'll go with the current evidence-based findings, which is that they are complete garbage. Somatotypes were invented by a psychologist in the 1940s, by looking at photos of people and documenting his feelz about how they looked.

There are certainly variations in muscle/fat distribution (as well as height, muscle insertions/origins, limb dimensions, etc.), all of which can be attributed to genetics - not "somatotypes".

The slowing in metabolic rates as we age is attributed to sarcopenia - age-related loss of muscle. This can be counteracted by strength training and adequate protein intake, to the point where it's all but irrelevant.

mmapags

AnvilHead wrote: »

Post a link to any valid peer-reviewed research regarding somatotypes and metabolism. Otherwise I'll go with the current evidence-based findings, which is that they are complete garbage. Somatotypes were invented by a psychologist in the 1940s, by looking at photos of people and documenting his feelz about how they looked.

There are certainly variations in muscle/fat distribution (as well as height, muscle insertions/origins, limb dimensions, etc.), all of which can be attributed to genetics - not "somatotypes".

The slowing in metabolic rates as we age is attributed to sarcopenia - age-related loss of muscle. This can be counteracted by strength training and adequate protein intake, to the point where it's all but irrelevant.

Spot on! I thought we were playing woo bingo for a minute there.

singingflutelady

veggiekeller wrote: »

Some people have digestive issues. If I eat too much, it just comes up. I've tried adding more oil, but just because it's dense nutrition doesn't make it easier for my body to digest it. It all just comes back up.

If this is caused by gastroparesis (delayed stomach emptying) I would not add more oil. Both fiber and fat slow down your gastric emptying even more so the generally accepted diet is low fiber/ low fat.

pinggolfer96

psuLemon wrote: »

pinggolfer96 wrote: »

I feel like this needs to be a post that stays at the top of the forum cause it’s repeated constantly! A lot of posts lately about people saying they “can’t gain weight” or “how do I gain weight” or “I have a fast metabolism”

You can gain weight. If you can’t....you’re defying simple science. Intake more energy than you burn (calories) equals weight gain, and Vice versa....
Idc if you say “but I eat so much!”
No you probably don’t or else you’d be gaining weight....
Saying I can’t gain weight is aka for I’m an under-eater.

If you have problems eating food cause you’re so full, don’t complain, find ways to make it work. Add oils to shakes, nuts, fatty meats, ice cream, pizzas, burgers. Calorically dense items! Google is also your friend. You can easily type in calorie dense foods or calorie dense shake recipes. Just a little rant cause the scientific literature of gaining weight is as simple as energy(caloric) manipulation

You do realize that is why i created the thread, are you a hard gainer?

No I’m not a “hardgainer” also known as an under eater. I made this post cause people say “I can’t gain weight but I eat so much!” .....well obviously you don’t cause you’re not gaining weight.

Grambo54 wrote: »

My opinion, the pinned thread is wrong in one very important aspect. The thread says "Statistically speaking, the average person doesn't have a slow or fast metabolism". I think thats totally wrong and I dont think reality bears it out. What I see is that some body types (somatypes) metabolise food faster than others. We've all seen average people who can eat what they want and dont gain weight. Other "average people" get fat easily. Metabolic rates are not the whole story but they are a big part of it. I trained for competitions with an ectomorph body type for years. He ate much more than me, trying to gain weight, but put on weight, and only muscle weight, painfully slowly over the years. Me, a mesomorph type, I found it easy to gain weight even though I ate less than him. If you are a hard gainer look at the mix of calories you consume ie carbs/fat/protein. If you do too much cardio, this will hinder your weight gain. If you over train in the gym that will hinder weight gain. If you are overly stressed, that will too. What Im saying is, calories in calories out is only true in that your body will burn it all, but not at the same rate for everyone. Put the average ectomorph and endomorph on 4000 calories a day each, same level of activity etc, and watch the endomorph get fat. Also as you age your metabolic rate slows, making it harder to keep weight off. My training partner during my 20's is now 64. He dosnt exercise, eats what he wants, drinks beer/wine every day and still maintains the realatively slim ectomorphic physique he's always had. Me, Im 64 as well, but I have to run, bike, train, do as much as I can, to keep my weight under any sort of control whilst still enjoying plenty of food and beer, which I now thoroughly deserve at my age!

Sorry but I disagree. I think lifestyle factors and genetics play more of a part than what you’re explaining here. Sometotypes are a myth. You also never know what someone does in the time you don’t see them...they couldn’t constantly under eat or over eat when alone...etc. most people think they eat a lot and don’t gain weight, when in reality they’re not tracking and have no clue. Also fat accumulation on the body is different/ predisposed. So saying someone never gains weight may hold ten lbs in their legs compared to someone who held it more so in their abdomen....they would look heavier if held in the abdomen, yet, it’s still ten lbs....

Grambo54

Somatypes are just a way of categorising aspects of the human physique. Thats what Sheldon tried to do. We categorise every thing else on this planet. Your genetics absolutely determine your body type/shape/bone size etc etc in fact all of the features of your body. And Its not 3 different types of "somatype" that function according to a list of specific criteria. We are all a mix. And you ascribe to calories in calories out no matter what your genetic mix. I dont. You can say its all been been debunked but not everyone agrees that it has. Theres still alot to learn about how the body works. Scientists have their pet theories and claim they are right. Im not a scientist. Ive just observed alot over my time in and out of the gym. So, the environmental crisis of climate change. Is it real? Would you say yes, and that any other theory has been debunked? Sorry but not all well qualified scientists would agree. So we all have our opinions. Do what you think is right, but I think the juries still out, so be prepared to be proven wrong.

pinggolfer96

Grambo54 wrote: »

Somatypes are just a way of categorising aspects of the human physique. Thats what Sheldon tried to do. We categorise every thing else on this planet. Your genetics absolutely determine your body type/shape/bone size etc etc in fact all of the features of your body. And Its not 3 different types of "somatype" that function according to a list of specific criteria. We are all a mix. And you ascribe to calories in calories out no matter what your genetic mix. I dont. You can say its all been been debunked but not everyone agrees that it has. Theres still alot to learn about how the body works. Scientists have their pet theories and claim they are right. Im not a scientist. Ive just observed alot over my time in and out of the gym. So, the environmental crisis of climate change. Is it real? Would you say yes, and that any other theory has been debunked? Sorry but not all well qualified scientists would agree. So we all have our opinions. Do what you think is right, but I think the juries still out, so be prepared to be proven wrong.

I’d rather take anecdotal evidence and the reports from meta analysis studies that give us the most accurate answer than going off of life experience or a bodybuilding forum...etc. yes we have a lot to learn about everything, the day we stop learning I believe is the day we die. We always come out with new studies or discoveries, but what we have THUS far from the most accurate sources says otherwise in terms of what you’re trying to argue. See I’m not saying youre wrong, I’m not saying you’re right, I’m saying based on our best research from non biased sources. Controlled CICO/ macros is king in terms of body composition.

Keto_Vampire

"The law of conservation of energy.
This states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, energy can change forms, and energy can flow from one place to another. A particular consequence of the law of conservation of energy is that the total energy of an isolated system does not change."

mmapags

pinggolfer96 wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

pinggolfer96 wrote: »

I feel like this needs to be a post that stays at the top of the forum cause it’s repeated constantly! A lot of posts lately about people saying they “can’t gain weight” or “how do I gain weight” or “I have a fast metabolism”

You can gain weight. If you can’t....you’re defying simple science. Intake more energy than you burn (calories) equals weight gain, and Vice versa....
Idc if you say “but I eat so much!”
No you probably don’t or else you’d be gaining weight....
Saying I can’t gain weight is aka for I’m an under-eater.

If you have problems eating food cause you’re so full, don’t complain, find ways to make it work. Add oils to shakes, nuts, fatty meats, ice cream, pizzas, burgers. Calorically dense items! Google is also your friend. You can easily type in calorie dense foods or calorie dense shake recipes. Just a little rant cause the scientific literature of gaining weight is as simple as energy(caloric) manipulation

You do realize that is why i created the thread, are you a hard gainer?

No I’m not a “hardgainer” also known as an under eater. I made this post cause people say “I can’t gain weight but I eat so much!” .....well obviously you don’t cause you’re not gaining weight.

He isn't asking you if you are a hard gainer. He is saying that is why he created a thread called, "are you a hard gainer". As Anvilhead said it is in the must reads and it specifically addresses the issue of people who say they have trouble gaining weight. See the link in Anvil's post.

Grambo54

I understand scientific data and the law of conservation of energy. The "most accurate sources" may also be debatable. There are so many scientific theories now from so many "experts" that Ive become more sceptical of all of them. Somatypes are just one tool to help achieve a goal. What was totally debunked was the linking of Somatypes to temperament. Many people still believe in Somatypes, check out forums, fitness sites etc. Its by no means debunked as a way of categorising people for diet and programming purposes. I also dont believe in "one diet for all" Some people have one type upper body, another type lower. We see it. Why not give it a name. What I dont agree on in the hard gainer thread is this: "Statistically speaking, the average person doesn't have a slow or fast metabolism, but rather have one of the following issues: 1. current eating style isn't conducive towards their goals, 2. psychological struggles or 3. high/active job/daily routine."

What this says is that so called "hard gainers" (bad term by the way) think theyre eating alot but really theyre not, they talk themselves in to living out the hard gainer label, and use too many calories doing other things every day. Tell that to the skinny guy pigging out every day, training hard, resting as much as he can and gaining ever so slowly as my training partner did for years. Metabolism plays a big part. Two people can have different metabolisms genetically, not just environmentally. Some people are genetically predisposoed to putting on weight faster than others. We've all seen those people. It may be related to insulin/leptin production in the body, but net result is that skinny people who try but cant put on weight metabolise food faster than those who put on weight easily, in laymans terms. Interesting discussion though, forced me to do more research. By the way both myself and training partner of 5 years both did well in national open class competitions at similar body weights, he stayed lean all the way, I didnt. He wasnt a "hard gainer" after all.

psuLemon

Grambo54 wrote: »

I understand scientific data and the law of conservation of energy. The "most accurate sources" may also be debatable. There are so many scientific theories now from so many "experts" that Ive become more sceptical of all of them. Somatypes are just one tool to help achieve a goal. What was totally debunked was the linking of Somatypes to temperament. Many people still believe in Somatypes, check out forums, fitness sites etc. Its by no means debunked as a way of categorising people for diet and programming purposes. I also dont believe in "one diet for all" Some people have one type upper body, another type lower. We see it. Why not give it a name. What I dont agree on in the hard gainer thread is this: "Statistically speaking, the average person doesn't have a slow or fast metabolism, but rather have one of the following issues: 1. current eating style isn't conducive towards their goals, 2. psychological struggles or 3. high/active job/daily routine."

What this says is that so called "hard gainers" (bad term by the way) think theyre eating alot but really theyre not, they talk themselves in to living out the hard gainer label, and use too many calories doing other things every day. Tell that to the skinny guy pigging out every day, training hard, resting as much as he can and gaining ever so slowly as my training partner did for years. Metabolism plays a big part. Two people can have different metabolisms genetically, not just environmentally. Some people are genetically predisposoed to putting on weight faster than others. We've all seen those people. It may be related to insulin/leptin production in the body, but net result is that skinny people who try but cant put on weight metabolise food faster than those who put on weight easily, in laymans terms. Interesting discussion though, forced me to do more research. By the way both myself and training partner of 5 years both did well in national open class competitions at similar body weights, he stayed lean all the way, I didnt. He wasnt a "hard gainer" after all.

If you look at one standard deviation of a persons metabolism, it is around +/- 200 calories of the predicted levels. That equates to 96% of the population. In fact, the evidence behind metabolism is in the link i provided.

Are their ouliers, yep... But its rare. Do some people have high TDEEs because of the impacts of TEA and NEAT, sure... And sometimes they can be large (especially those with active jobs). But in all the times, i have seen a hard gainer thread, there has been 1 people that has been an outliers, and he had hyperthyroidism. Most men on here maintain between 2800-3200 calories. I think i know of about 3 guys who are higher. Most women are between 2200-2600 in my experience (more for those breastfeeding).

Do some people gain muscle easier, yep. Why, well age, insulin sensitivity, training program, test levels, etc.. drive those parameters, but even then, their calories tend to not be hughly different.

So maybe on bb.com there are more outliers, some or many of which are enhanced, but that is probably a small percentage of people who are very specialized.

Grambo54

The body type scale is wide and varied. No one size fits all. I read the article on metabolism between two people. Its said "The majority of the population exists in a range of 200-300kcal from each other and do not possess hugely different metabolic rates". We are talking the "hard gainers here" as per the pinned thread. Do you believe that if a weight trainer/body builder who has been lean (generally ectomorph) all their life and finds it hard to put on weight, eats an extra 300 calories a day than say your average of 3000 calories for most men, he will put on 30 pounds over the next 12 months. I dont, not for a minute. And do you think that the weight trainer/ bodybuilder who puts on weight easily (generally endomorph) and finds it hard to lose it once its on, he eats 300 calories more each day, will he put on 30 pounds. Probably will. I have no science to prove that though, just years in my gyms trying to help slow gainers and everyone else who came through the door.

SashaCmone1102

You are extremely annoying. You’re like a troll, on every post where anybody says they are having trouble gaining weight. Of course the way to gain weight is to eat more than you are burning, Dr. Obvious, but sometimes people dont realize that they are under eating, and your condescending comments aren’t helpful. I was also underweight majority of my life, and since almost everybody(even doctors) kept telling me I would not be able to put on the weight because of “metabolism” and “genetics”, I believed it. Only until this past May, I decided to stop feeling sorry for myself and try my damn hardest to put weight on. I am 5’3” and I weighed 91lbs. Have I been successful? Hell yea. I weigh 120lbs today, never been anywhere near 120lbs my entire life. Im proud of myself because it was NOT easy. I had to deal with being uncomfortable for a while because i was always stuffed from overeating. That in of itself is anough to cause a person to quit, but I wanted it bad enough to stick in there. I decided not to count calories because i felt it would overwhelm me and I would give up. So my strategy was to just eat all day every day. I would finish everything and even when I felt so full I couldn’t fit anything else in, I would eat again anyway. THIS is how i did it, but someone else may have their own way. So instead of telling these people to “eat more” give suggestions on how they should go about doing that, because for people like myself it’s easier said than done

Noreenmarie1234

Grambo54 wrote: »

The body type scale is wide and varied. No one size fits all. I read the article on metabolism between two people. Its said "The majority of the population exists in a range of 200-300kcal from each other and do not possess hugely different metabolic rates". We are talking the "hard gainers here" as per the pinned thread. Do you believe that if a weight trainer/body builder who has been lean (generally ectomorph) all their life and finds it hard to put on weight, eats an extra 300 calories a day than say your average of 3000 calories for most men, he will put on 30 pounds over the next 12 months. I dont, not for a minute. And do you think that the weight trainer/ bodybuilder who puts on weight easily (generally endomorph) and finds it hard to lose it once its on, he eats 300 calories more each day, will he put on 30 pounds. Probably will. I have no science to prove that though, just years in my gyms trying to help slow gainers and everyone else who came through the door.

Unless you can do an experiment in which you give an "ectomorph" and "mesomorph" the exact same calories and keep them in a bubble monitoring their activity and everything that goes into their mouth and one gains and the other doesn't, I am not buying it. No amount of what you think you observe is valid because it is confounded by NUMEROUS lifestyle differences. You are not around these people every waking moment of the day to even be able to make such conclusions. I guarantee the "ectomorph" is just naturally thin because he has countless other things working towards that. It has nothing to do with metabolizing differently. It is because he likely eats less naturally after eating more, skimps here and there, and without thinking is more active on days he eats more calories.

Yes there are people who are predisposed to being heavier, but that isn't because of some difference in metabolism. It is a difference in numerous environmental, psychological and social underpinnings that influence their behaviors/habits, and changing the calories in vs calories out.

Grambo54

"You are extremely annoying. You’re like a troll, on every post where anybody says they are having trouble gaining weight." Are you talking to me??